Security Council

So yesterday, Russia and China vetoed a very mild United Nations resolution including sanctions threats on Syria. The resolution was a typical concoction by Western countries, aimed at the Syrian military regime. Nothing too harsh, mind you, not just to appease Moscow and Beijing, but also for reasons linked to the complex Syrian internal mix-up as well as the regional maze of interests. Yet, this is hardly a typical Eastern fault. A no less reasonable request by a Permanent Observer non-member (the Palestinian Authority) to get full membership is most likely to be rejected by a similar veto by the USA (at least). In both cases, it is not the resolution in question which is at fault, and said resolutions do not even go against the interests of the vetoer. Their writers made sure they removed anything seriously threatening from them. No, in both cases, the veto is more a matter of affirming or confirming supremacy in the global order. In both cases, while the European Union has been involved (and despite its two veto powers in the Security Council), its absence of common Foreign policy prevented it to have any significant say.

This underlines two things: the catastrophic layout of the EU institutions is costing it its own interests and the Security Council of the UN has long passed its own utility. It is an outdated system, with outdated rules which are not even fairly representing a balance of powers any more. In the EU case, it is an unfortunate case of shooting its own feet. The member states have been so busy clipping the wings of the common institutions, that they are now consistently hurting their own local petty interests, just because they can't ever have time to agree on any matter. Even in the rather successful Libyan affair, the effort was mostly NATO related and centered on two member states (the UK and France) backed by an external party (the USA). In the UN case, the problem is older, but not deeper. The United Nations has textual ambitions of being an organisation promoting peace and people's rights. It has turned up, being a status quo freezer, systematically promoting the interests of the Security Council permanent members, at the expense, sometimes, of their own populations.

I could say it is time for changes, but I highly doubt it will happen any time soon.
Tweet

Alan Johnston Liberation

Dear readers,

It is an understatement to say that Alan Johnston liberation (without assault) is a major victory for Hamas. A victory on the international scene that it has began using on all channels at its disposal. Fair enough, we have to acknowledge that it has succeeded where Fatah was not able to do anything. Furthermore it has begun to restore (its) law and order in Gaza. It is no small feat, even if this has cost already many lives, mainly of Fatah members.

But there are other aspects to this. Hamas is claiming that Fatah is responsible for a situation where clans and mafias (such as the one which was holding Alan) were allowed to freely carry weapons and impose their own will. It is certainly true in a way. Fatah never really opposed the clans or the different militias in Gaza or in the West Bank. In some cases, it actually created or encouraged them. This said, it is a very ironical claim from a party which is actually arming a militia itself, outside of any legal process (if this has any meaning in the Palestinian Territories). Worse, this party, Hamas, has not hesitated to use this militia to fight physically "official" Palestinian security services. So it is clearly a sad case of bad faith from Hamas.

Let's not be too naive. Hamas, because it is less corrupt and more disciplined, also more fanatical than Fatah, will probably succeed in Gaza. But at which price will this come? It is pretty obvious that the Islamic Law will be applied (in whichever local Hamas oriented interpretation...). It is probably better than no law at all, in a sense, but it is a very bad thing for a big part of the million and a half Gaza citizens: women, Christians, secular Palestinians. Let's also not forget that Hamas is still a terrorist movement. It might show a nice face from time to time, but the fact is they never hesitated to use suicide bombers, slaughter of innocents, etc., sometimes just to make a point. OK, let's be fair in another way, their opponents are barely better (and Israel has not shown a lot more respect for innocent lives either).

And there is a third party that can still play a very nasty game. To continue "exist" in a political sense, Islamic Jihad will have to show some muscle pretty quickly. They are present in Gaza as well as the West Bank. I would not be surprised if they try to create some trouble in Gaza (to test Hamas new power) and in the West Bank... How Fatah, Hamas and Israel will react to this (end interact together) will probably be the key to Palestine's future.